idiot ? -
Personal Profile

Member Statement

Please consider just softly, innocently looking and listening. Just quietly being aware. Just open.

Normally we respond from the known: we see something in front of us, pull up its name from memory, and have definite ideas about it. Also, there is division: there's me and there's whatever object.

The unknown is when there's no thought. Therefore, there is no use of memory, no naming, no telling this from that, no division, no perception from a center, no recognition. There is awareness outside of time.

It is not that time and space and things don't exist. Or do exist. The brain activity that can make such distinctions has not yet begun.

To investigate the unknown, to look, listen and feel without thought, is the very heart of K teaching.

Thank you.

Interests and Recommendations

Books

Think On These Things
The First and Last Freedom

Music

I highly recommend music.

Other interests

Music.

Interview Answers

How do you personally go about exploring the Krishnamurti's teachings (through personal study, dialogues, dvds)?

The assumption in this question is that I personally go about exploring K's teachings. For me, life is exploration, discovery.

How do you strike a balance between healthy doubt and ready acceptance in investigating Krishnamurti's proposals?

Doubt is essential. Doubt is, in no way, negative. It seems like it is negative because we think that doubt is an attack on a belief. But actually, any belief is an attack on reality. To question, is to engage reality full on. It means you are really serious about looking into things for yourself.

There is no need to balance doubt with anything. However, it is important to respect people. This means that, although people may have certain beliefs that invite questioning, you still treat them with respect, caring, affection. Then maybe, there can be questioning together.

Does the phrase "living the teachings" have any meaning to you?

Do you think it is possible to make Krishnamurti more "practicable" than what he himself seems to have allowed for?

Meditation, in the sense of sitting quietly, is vital. If the teachings are merely intellectual for you, not actual in daily life, I urge you to explore quiet sitting. The teaching of sitting meditation is in K teachings. It's just that he warned so much about narrowing techniques of meditation, like mantra meditation, that many who are interested in K have thrown away all quiet sitting. K sat alone with his back straight each morning beginning before the sun rose. If you read K carefully, you see that sitting quietly is in his teaching. Real meditation.

K teaching is "practicable" when carefully looked into. Especially with respect to meditation.

Do you ever feel that you have been conditioned by Krishnamurti's teachings?

Probably most who have studied K teachings are conditioned by them. That is they are just integrated into the pre-existing stack of memories. A little bit of understanding may arise and then a falling back into the rut of conditioned existence.

However, if there is real understanding, then moment by moment conditioning is shattered. Awareness shines a light on any conflict that arises, conflict being indicative of conditioning. In the light of awareness, conditioning cannot hold. The conditioned self dissolves. Caring is. Spontaneous responsiveness. Love.

How important do you consider group dialogue to be in understanding the more subtle points of Krishnamurti's message?

When I have participated in live group dialogue, as opposed to online, I have noticed that it is usually difficult to go into much depth. Typically there are many people, at least ten, and often forty or more. If you are polite, you won't get more than a few sentences out. Often, those most set in their views, which are often quite askew from K teaching, dominate the discussion.

K himself dialogued most successfully with one other person or with a handful of people at a time. Organized K dialogues seem to have too many participants.

Do you think it advisable to introduce Krishnamurti to people you know? Have you ever done it and if yes, what are your experiences?

Do you think Krishnamurti was exceptional, or is the transformation he spoke of universally accessible?

If K was exceptional and there is no way you can open to what he was talking about, then why should he have talked about it at all?

Nearly everyone can understand K to some degree.

But who completely casts away self?

K, a human being, fell short sometimes.

Each moment is opportunity, new.

Transformation is not a fixed point in time. Not the mirage you think you see up ahead. Not an attainment in your rear view mirror. Transformation is moment to moment. Listening quietly, the heart opens up.

Are there any aspects of Krishnamurti's teaching that you find implausible or difficult to accept?

Sure. Those things that are not true.

One example is when he did not unequivocally repudiate the Masters. He hedged.

I'm in agreement with him that spiritual authority limits freedom of investigation and therefore you should be free of all spiritual authority. Naturally this would include the Masters of Theosophy. I am in disagreement with him that he does not deny the existence of the Masters of Theosophy unambiguously.

In fact, in a 1972 interview with Alain Naudé, Krishnamurti basically says that for him, the Master is real, is connected with vast emptiness, and is outside of the opposites of good and evil. Later in the interview he says that "it’s a very dangerous thing even to talk about it. You follow? And one has to kind of hedge round it."

To me, the Master is not real. I do not accept the existence of the Theosophical masters in any way, other than as figments of imagination.

Can dialogue - in the sense of sincere inquiry - be organized or can it only come about spontaneously, unprompted?

Having participated in many, many dialogues, I have noticed that people often are unsatisfied with them. They certainly don't seem to go the way the recorded dialogues that K had went. And so people start to want to offer guidelines; they want to try to shape the dialogue in a certain direction. In short, people have a preconceived idea of ideal dialogue, are unhappy when a real dialogue falls short, and they want to move things toward their preconception. You can see how much this goes against K teaching. But you can also see how unsatisfying a dialogue often is, with minds locked into their own patterns, no real change, and no real hearing.

So I must look closely and carefully at my reaction in relationship, in dialogue. I must observe my dissatisfaction and then begin to see how such conflict can only arise against my own preconception. I look at my reaction: Am I angry, nervous, distancing myself, cynical or mocking in my mind?

When reaction is clearly seen and therefore ends, then truthful, loving communication is. This doesn't come about through guidelines, which merely try to corral a self. It comes about through awareness, shared insight and transformation.